Posted
by
samzenpus
on Wednesday June 25, 2014 @11:36PM
from the smart-in-love dept.

mpicpp writes in with news about a new dating opportunity for Mensa members. It takes a special person to join Mensa. For one, the elite society only takes individuals with IQ scores in the 98th percentile, meaning just 1 in 50 Americans is eligible. This exclusivity — some might say snobbery — is part of Mensa's lore. Early Mensans in Britain walked around with yellow buttons, organizational publications once referred to non-Mensa members as "Densans," and last year, a top Mensa member and tester called anyone with an IQ of 60 a "carrot." In short, you don't always join Mensa because you think you're smart. You join to be set apart from most people, who are, as one member put it: "mundane." But a new partnership between American Mensa and online dating giant Match.com offers a new, enticing reason to join the society of geniuses: true love. Beginning this week, members of the brainiac group can connect through a separate, exclusive dating service called Mensa Match. In addition, Match.com members can add a special Mensa badge to their profiles, signaling a specific interest in connecting with a single person with a confirmed genius-level IQ score.

I'm smart, maybe not mensa smart (don't really care either way) but fuck hanging out with other aholes like me!

OP is a bit snobbish itself.

People (by and large... certainly there are exceptions) join MENSA so that they can converse with other people with similar mental character and interests. Just exactly how some people join motorcycle clubs because they like motorcycles and want to discuss them and appreciate them with people of similar interest, someone might join MENSA because they like talking about physics -- or even crossword puzzles -- with people who are like themselves.

There is no need to try to suggest that is "snobbery" of any kind. Would you call a motorcycle gang "snobs"? Or stamp collectors? MENSA is a social club, nothing more.

And by the way, a bit of history: MENSA members did sometimes wear small yellow pins, like tie tacks but about 1/8" diameter, like those little pins you stick in maps -- not badges -- simply so that they could find each other in a crowd. It wasn't snobbery, it was subtle (very subtle) identification. The reason was because more obvious identification made them targets of violence for bigots and other idiots.

If I wanted to join a motorcycle club or a stamp collector club I'd be welcomed without any qualification. My interest would be enough. They'd be delighted to tell me about their bikes or stamps and encourage me to learn more. They'd probably be a little surprised if I didn't have a bike or a stamp collection, but they'd encourage me to get one and not look down their nose at me if I didn't have one.

Yeah, but often they will happily hook you up with their favorite dealer or someone they know trying to unload an old bike. I have yet to see a mensa member say "oh, you did not pass the IQ test, but I think it is cool that you want to go in so here are some things that will get you going".

I don't think that intelligence (perceived or not) is equatable to a hobby.You can't get "more intelligent" and those few that are true blue geniuses didn't just start being a genius the way you or I go out and start stamp collection. It's a biological trait, not a sociological construct.

so that they can converse with other people with similar mental character and interests

It's a fair point, but what exactly is being shared? Having a shared high IQ is no guarantee at all of the shared or compatible interests, personality, life aims or values. All the kind of stuff that helps in a social club, and relationship most definitely needs.

The only thing they have in common is an interest in knowing how smart they, and other people are, by one particular yardstick. As interest go, that's pretty shallow.

There is no need to try to suggest that is "snobbery" of any kind. Would you call a motorcycle gang "snobs"? Or stamp collectors? MENSA is a social club, nothing more.

Exactly. I don't know much about Mensa, because I've never felt the need to join. I'm pretty sure most of the people around me would qualify, but that also means that we already have plenty of smart people to have intellectual discussions with. My sister, however, studied sports, got surrounded by other sporty people, and eventually started to miss contact with other smart people, so she joined Mensa, and now she talks about all the game events and motorcycle trips they have and all the interesting people she meets there. It fills a need for her that for me is already filled in other ways.

People (by and large... certainly there are exceptions) join MENSA so that they can converse with other people with similar mental character and interests.

Pretty much this. As an example, Throughout my life and career I've been very fast on "uptake". Even in high school, I'd read the textbooks, and then sit in class, kinda bored.

In my career, it continued. Oddly that was around a lot of intelligent people. But while most concepts needed explained several times, I had figured out what the speaker said and meant the first time he said it. An awkward world, being both interested and bored at the same time.

That is why hanging out with mensa people drove me crazy, not only are they arm-chair everything but their organization encourages their belief that they understand things they do not and non-members don:t.

I was friends with a couple of Mensa members who had been past presidents of the local chapter. They did describe it as basically a social scene. If you showed up at a Mensa party you might not realize that the people were all above average intelligence because they didn't hang out chatting about intellectual stuff but instead drank beer and talked about the same boring stuff everyone else does and meet people of the appropriate sex. And because it was based on IQ and not upon achievements, the members c

Whenever someone tells me they are in Mensa, I usually think, what a fuck head. Not only did you care enough to jump through the hoops to join, but you are arrogant enough to want everyone to know you're a member.

Instead, show me your intellect with witty conversation, keen understanding, and curiosity, and you won't be such an ass.

Way too much truth here. I passed their exam to satisfy my curiosity but figured I'd find them as boring as I find myself after surfing their forums at the time. As far as the chicks go (recalling my days in Uni), a well-maintained genius is so outnumbered by men I would have better luck going for supermodels interested in money. The truth is everyone is an idiot in a demonstrable way, and the ideal match is the one who can find the humor in the ways their partner is just bloody hopeless.

There is a high correlation of 0.90 to 0.95 between the prestige rankings of occupations, as rated by the general population, and the average general intelligence scores of people employed in each occupation. [1]

The correlation between income and IQ scores is 0.40. The correlation is higher at higher levels of education and it increases with age, stabilizing when people reach their highest career potential in middle age. Even when education, occupation and socioeconomic background are held constant, the correlation does not vanish. [2]

Your move.

[1] Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work: Occupationalattainment and job performance.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

I have no idea what my IQ is. I'm definitely very smart, but also very lazy and don't want to struggle on a test. I also have good days and slow days and I've let my brain vacation too much over the years (IQ is most definitely not a constant). I only had one IQ type test but it was when I was a kid and I never learned the score but some people seemed quite impressed.

Overall though the intelligence helps but I'd much rather get rid of it and replace it with a strong work ethic and ambition. Intelligence meant that I could slide through a lot without too much effort, school was easy, college was easy, and I never had to study. Whereas keeping my nose to the grindstone is hard, stepping up and taking charge is hard, keeping organized is hard, managing my personal affairs is hard, and so forth. In the big overall pictures, I am very much below average I think except for that one thing.

I have an IQ that repeatedly tested somewhere between 150-170. I crashed out of two universities, spent most of the 90's off my face one way or another and now work in IT support for a government department. High IQ doesn't always correlate to greater success - though it has helped me find a niche where I can slack more efficiently and still pull in a decent salary so I guess I'm not doing too bad.

CEO's are stupid as boxes of rocks, but they can sell themselves and talk others into doing things and convince people they know what they are doing.

Corporate success is 90% bullshit and 10% smarts.

On a side note, if you have an IQ of 150-170 and are not doing your own research or tinkering to come up with something new, you are wasting your brain. Start tinkering, start building, there HAS to be something you know you can do better or build better.

I have several patents under my belt, no I'm not making buttloads of money off of them but I created something that makes the world better. I also build and do things that others can not do. I can modify and reprogram Car ECM systems in my sleep, 90% of the automotive engineers at GM cant do what I can do. (Note: I did work for GM for a short time, 100% of their management is populated with raging low IQ assholes so I quit in less than 30 days) And I learned all this by hacking and tinkering.

So get off your ass and start doing. Smart people do not become CEO unless daddy had billions already (Elon Musk for example) Build things, hack things, modify things. I know a lot of high IQ people and they all have one thing in common. Being lazy. Smartest guy I know wastes most of every day playing Xbox and smoking pot.

Your failures are your own, and your success is also your own. What do you want more of?

On a side note, if you have an IQ of 150-170 and are not doing your own research or tinkering to come up with something new, you are wasting your brain.... Your failures are your own, and your success is also your own. What do you want more of?

Spending time with my family. Much better use of my high IQ brain than just about anything else.

I'd argue that except for those who got there via nepotism, it's extremely rare that someone is a successful businessperson w/o generally having their shit together. Sure, we hear about f-ups all the time, and everyone loves to criticize the boss because we think we know better, but in the big scheme of things, the frequency of those bad decisions is generally outweighed by the smart ones that you don't hear about because they're not newsworthy.

Maybe I'm just speaking from my own experience, and maybe it depends upon your definition of success. My dad was a small business owner, and I've known several others, all of whom I would call intelligent and successful. FWIW, I qualified for MENSA back in the 70s, but never joined.

I have several patents under my belt, no I'm not making buttloads of money off of them but I created something that makes the world better.

You created a legal restriction for others wishing to create things, and you see this as making the world better?

I'd argue that openly publishing your designs for the world to use freely would make the world better. What you did makes your world better.

Otherwise, I completely agree with your post. All too often, ambition and intelligence are inversely correlated. I like to think of it the other way around, though. Perhaps some of us are smart enough to know better than to bust our asses for no good rea

If I am not mistaken, Michelangelo mainly dedicated his life to promoting himself, winning big commissions from the wealthiest patrons and cared little for anyone else. True, he was hugely talented and creative but he wasn't painting and sculpting out of a sense of altruism. Or are you saying that he was the 'rent-seeking cocksucker'?

> I know a lot of high IQ people and they all have one thing in common. Being lazy. Smartest guy I know wastes most of every day playing Xbox and smoking pot.

âoeFor instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so muchâ"the wheel, New York, wars and so onâ"whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than manâ"for precisely the same reasons.â

Sometimes I wonder if the reason that people of high IQ are lazy are that they've never learned the value of hard work. As a high IQ person (and non-practicing Mensan), I breezed through school while putting in a minimum amount of effort. An 'A' was an 'A' and more effort was fruitless. College was a bit tougher, but never really had to put my nose to the grindstone. I've noticed that I'm comfortable being lazy. Basically spent the first 18-22 years of my life training myself to do the bare minimum and surp

You're mistaking me for someone that likes to work. I don't. I'll find the workplace you describe once people start hiring professional sleepers. Even then, I wouldn't be surprised if I developed insomnia and grew to hate that which I now love.

Being compelled to do things not of your own volition is toxic. Unfortunately, that's how society is structured.

Most studies have found an IQ to income correlation of 0.4 to 0.5. That is not particularly strong, but it isn't zero. The correlation is weaker for people with very high IQs. Someone with an IQ of 100 (normal) will earn much more than someone at 60 (mildly retarded). Someone with an IQ of 120 will do significantly better than someone at 100. But someone with an IQ of 160 (genius) will do little better than someone at 120, on average.

> Though it's arguable how useful an IQ test is. It's a poor metric of intelligence, it's just commonly used because all the other suggestions are worse.

I agree, One time in line at a grocery store one man remarked about how it was stupid they had "retards"[sic] working there. I told him "You can learn from anybody, even this so-called 'retard.' for example, notice he is treating everybody with respect. You know, come to think of it, I never met anyone with Down's syndrome who is a nasty and judgmental prick like you. Maybe we can all take a lesson and learn to treat others nicely."

Besides, he was doing a great job and was taking pride in his work. What's to judge? What if that asshole were in the position of being mentally challenged - I'd love to see him wear those shoes for a day.

What good is intelligence if all one ends up doing is thinking they're better than everyone and treat others like shit?

The idea that you would join a society dedicated to separating you from "regular people" based on your supposed superior intelligence is a pretty strange notion. Most of the people who I know are Mensa members are the type that couldn't get accepted to any other club.

The idea that you would join a society dedicated to separating you from "regular people" based on your supposed superior intelligence is a pretty strange notion. Most of the people who I know are Mensa members are the type that couldn't get accepted to any other club.

The Mensa groups I attended (in more than one area) were more like bridge clubs. They sat around and played games, while gossiping. They didn't interest me.

It's a ranking test designed for the classroom. You fire a bunch of questions, the same ones at the subjects and rank them in order of their results. There should be many questions. That is the IQ test. That's why it's a 'Q' for quotient, not any other sort of metric. It ranks within a group in the same testing context.As a test it has no power to test an absolute level of intelligence. Just a relative ranking measure, and a sloppy one at that, within a

And why should certain people need to meet people from "regular" people? Well, for me, and luckily over different periods of my life, I found people like me, talking about cars, the football, religion or TV/fucking idols does not cut it out.

They don't have enough real-world experience at the young age most of them get their certificates to actually comprehend that - just an analytical ability that at their age is ahead of the curve; mostly due to having parents that actually read to them, etc. Most don't re-test as adults for a good reason. "IQ scales for life.. you don't need to re-test," they'll drone, spouting nonsense that can be disproven with any reasonably sized statistical sample set. Went to a couple of Mensa open days when I was a ki

As the article says, that's irrelevant because it's a tribe affiliation. When it comes to these things, logic and intelligence are completely overwhelmed and suppressed. That's how our brains work. Ever notice how all so-called "freethought" and "rationalist" groups soon turn into hilariously ironic examples of conformity and groupthink?

If they were that smart they would know that the IQ test is neither a valid no reliable test for comparisons between groups, only within groups.

This.

Someone once said that IQ tests only measure how good you are at doing IQ tests. I would put it another way: they only measure a certain kind of intelligence -- the kind that is good at solving logical puzzles. Not necessarily the kind that excels at sports, arts, empathy, ethics, etc. As the OP says, they might be a proxy for ranking within groups, but not between them.

Intelligence (as measured by Spearman's g factor) is one of the best predictors for pretty much any measure of success or talent. People who excel at art or sports are also people with high g. The IQ test has one of the highest correlations Spearman's g of any test, so IQ test measures a lot more than how good you are at doing IQ tests.

Yes, but vanity seems to overcome this. The whole simplistic notion of a single score to describe a mental ability that is as broad as "intelligence" is lacking in scientific rigour. But apparently clever people are too clever to need rigour.

Really? I don't find the legitimate ones bad at all. Much better than the SAT for testing raw, innate intelligence.

IQ is like a brightness of a flashlight. It's potential. Brighter is better, but it doesn't guarantee you point it at a useful direction, or even use it for anything useful at all other than to study playboy under the bedsheets.

I would think if they took recent Nobel Prize winners in the hard sciences, they would be trending above average and by a margin.

Really? I don't find the legitimate ones bad at all. Much better than the SAT for testing raw, innate intelligence.
IQ is like a brightness of a flashlight. It's potential. Brighter is better, but it doesn't guarantee you point it at a useful direction, or even use it for anything useful at all other than to study playboy under the bedsheets.

The problem is that IQ as a variable is pretty useless in practice. It has no prognostic validity for success in life or in a job. Motivation is far more important for that, but it's also harder to measure.

I would think if they took recent Nobel Prize winners in the hard sciences, they would be trending above average and by a margin.

Sure, but you would find even more high-IQ persons in quite mundane jobs. IQ is a confounding variable for success. Counter example: most Nobel Prize winners are male, too. Is t

Hmm. So;- people of race X are more likely to come from poor background on average- people coming from poor backgrounds have less IQ on averageis ok, but saying:- people of race X have less IQ on averageis already contrafactual. So, in same way:- 1/3 of cars of brand X have ignition locks of type Y, as opposed to 1/10 of other car manufacturers- ignition locks of type Y are more prone to getting car on firewill be ok, but saying:- cars of brand X are more prone to get on firewill be already wrong?

No, because vaccines have no relation to autism.IF there would be a:- vaccines contain X amount of lead- X amount of lead causes autismAND there would be a correlation between vaccines and autism, I would happily say 'vaccines cause autism', instead of saying 'it is just lead which causes autism, fact that vaccines contain lead is irrelevant, because injecting pure lead would also cause autism'

People from certain racial minorities have lower IQ. It is caused by social inequality, not genetics ('lead', not '

The primary distinguisher of the Ivy League schools isn't that they're rich or that they're exceptionally high quality (though generally they are.) They're a group of colleges that a century or so ago made an agreement with each other not to have athletic scholarships, so the students could play amateur sports against each other instead of having to compete with semi-professionals. Yes, occasionally a student at the Ivies is good enough to get into the NFL or NHL, but they've got to spend time being a student as well.

The primary distinguisher of the Ivy League schools isn't that they're rich or that they're exceptionally high quality (though generally they are.) They're a group of colleges that a century or so ago made an agreement with each other not to have athletic scholarships, so the students could play amateur sports against each other instead of having to compete with semi-professionals. Yes, occasionally a student at the Ivies is good enough to get into the NFL or NHL, but they've got to spend time being a student as well.

Having gone to an Ivy League school, I can tell you that they still give athletic scholarships to skilled student athletes (with skilled modifying latter noun!). They just call them "academic" scholarships.

Before someone asks, yes, I am "Mensa material". I do IQ tests as a pastime. It's fun to watch shrinks stare in awe. So I could join them. As could, I'm certain, most people around here. Being in the 2% bracket isn't THAT difficult when you look at it. There are actually clubs out there with far tighter joining criteria. Also not really something I'd consider joining.

I mean, let's be honest, why should I? Yes, it's fun to have a discussion with people who can think beyond next breakfast but it's no fun having them with people who consider themselves so "smart" and aloof to join a club that selects its members by intelligence. I mean, imagine you're good looking, would you want to join a club that only lets beautiful people join? Ponder what kind of self absorbed, shallow cunts such criteria attract. And then ponder whether you want to be part of that.

And even more, ponder whether you want to spend at least part of your life with someone like that. And now let's imagine the worst case, just think that kids would be the results of such a union. What kind of person do you think such a child would become? Either you'll have a completely broken person who snapped under the pressure of being the expected "pinnacle of intelligence", or you get the ultimate self-absorbed asshole, or a combination of both.

Since there's a high probability they'll have a dullard as well that would be the funniest case scenario. Then those two could go at each other blaming and shaming since that average child could never be theirs.

Yes, it's fun to have a discussion with people who can think beyond next breakfast but it's no fun having them with people who consider themselves so "smart" and aloof to join a club that selects its members by intelligence.

So, I joined up when I started a business because it was the most economical professional organization that had travel discount deals with big rental companies. And I knew where my SAT scores were so it was easy.

I've only been to a couple meetups, but the people weren't as you suppose

There's some thought that assortative mating of 'geeks' is one cause [nature.com] of the rise in autism rates. High IQs tend to correlate with a better than average ability for pattern matching and focus. Combine two people with those abilities and maybe you get kids who are laser focused on patterns all the time.

It's an interesting theory (I'm the father of an autistic son so I do a lot of reading on the subject) but there's not much more than circumstantial evidence behind it. But probably as much as evidence as "the

I used to be in Mensa back in the 80s. When people found out I was in Mensa, they'd frequently express some surprise because they thought Mensans were a bunch of jerks because they'd met somebody who said he was in Mensa and who was very obnoxious, making himself out to be superior. I was surprised because most of the people I met in Mensa weren't like that. I remember throwing a party and invited people from my job and friends from Mensa, and the people from work commented later about how the Mensans at the party were down to earth regular folks and not at all like what they'd expected. I suspect that the jerks giving Mensa a bad rep don't actually go to Mensa events because what they want to do is brag and try to impress people but they can't do that if everybody else is a Mensan. But these same jerks are the ones making the most noise everywhere else and getting noticed. I will admit there are probably more nerdy, asperger's syndrome types in Mensa than the general population, but it's not that bad.

You know what was an exaggerated but based somewhat on truth depiction of Mensa? The one done in a Simpson's episode with Stephen Hawking as guest voice at the end.

When I was eight, I thought that Mensa must be the coolest thing in the world - a Club for Geniuses! When I got a bit older, I ended up going to a few meetings (I had had a school administered IQ test done when I was skipping a grade and that was good enough for the local chapter). Between the painfully shy, the weirdos and the snobs, even my 12 year old self figured out this wasn't the club for me.

I had hopes that maybe it was just the local chapter that was nuts but every time I hear anything about Mensa,

Your experience parallels mine. My biggest problem with them was that nearly all of them were Republicans. They had theirs, but they didn't want to help anyone else. Their lack of compassion for people not as smart as themselves was stunning.

If I had to guess, I'd say nearly all the Mensans I've ever bumped into have been liberal Democrats. The idea that "the sheeple" need to be lead by smart people who will make the best decisions for them is sort of endemic to that side of the aisle. Not that Republicans are anything to write home about, but the idea of "rule by smart people" is not the first thing that comes to mind when you think of the GOP...

The Democrats tend to draw the wonkiest of the wonks and the elite professional class into their orbit. Identify a problem (or "problem") in society and bring together a small group of experts who will make the best decision for each of the 330 million people living in the US is the operating assumption for them. The Mensans I've run into fit into that mindset pretty well.

It's only when you accept your own limitations and appreciate the different gifts that everybody has that you realize that no group of people, no matter how intelligent and well meaning, can possibly understand, let alone fulfill, the competing needs and desires of our diverse human family. Lay down some broadly accepted rules and provide a focused and best-in-class set of services, but otherwise, get out of the way.

I don't know about the US, but in the Netherlands there are dating sites that cater specifically to the "highly educated", i.e. people with university degrees. I understand the idea behind them: you're more likely to have something in common with someone who's roughly in the same ball park as you when it comes to intelligence. This is simply that idea taken one step further. It takes a special kind of person to join mensa (but intellectually and character-wise), and so people that do are likely to have more

"I think the carrot infinitely more fascinating than the geranium. The carrot has mystery. Flowers are essentially tarts. Prostitutes for the bees. There is, you'll agree, a certain 'je ne sais quoi' oh so very special about a firm, young carrot."

In early childhood, mild intellectual disability (IQ 50–69) may not be obvious, and may not be identified until children begin school.[7] Even when poor academic performance is recognized, it may take expert assessment to distinguish mild intellectual disability from learning disability or emotional/behavioral disorders. People with mild intellectual disability are capable of learning reading and mathematics skills to approximately the level of a typical child aged nine to twelve.[7] They can learn self-care and practical skills, such as cooking or using the local mass transit system.[7] As individuals with intellectual disability reach adulthood, many learn to live independently and maintain gainful employment.

Untrue. It's actually likely that you'll have on average as many qualifying people in the US as anywhere else.

The main difference is that in the US idiots tend to be loudmouths. Everywhere else they usually get what they deserve. Depending on area that's anything between a bullet, a fist or a gesture towards the door. I've spent some time in the US and it's amazing just how much some places cater to loudmouths. What would usually get you booted out the door around here often allows you to have your way in t

Not only do they tend to be loudmouths, there are certain segments of the population in the United States that seem to laud ignorance..... I've lived on 3 different continents and enjoy hanging around in dive bars, you get to meet fascinating people, and one thing that I've discovered is that while there are idiots everywhere, (anecdote alert) only in the US do people BRAG about being ignorant.....

Only in the US? Canadians seems to also not get the message. I once changed to an English school next door to their department on another town just because of a darn loud-mouthed canadian lady. She was lousy as a person, and as a teacher.